The 2E is great wdym?
1 Like
Well there was a source from when the tanks were first sent saying the MOD have instructed the crew to detonate the tanks if its left abandoned or unrecoverable. Apparently the crew were trained and how and were to destroy it.
That was never trialled on the Challenger 2, at least not in my knowledge (there is a mockup of it, but that is not a trial). The autoloaders, as you already mentioned, were for the MBT-80, specifically the E.N.T project. The carousel autoloader was chosen instead of the bustle due to being able to hold more ammo (as both autoloaders are meant to carry 140mm shells). The bustle autoloader never saw the light of day aside from that project, and there is a fake Challenger 2 “variant” that is allegedly carried the bustle one, but no proof was given. Even made a whole suggestion about it
Additionally, it was also planned to carry a 20mm autocannon and HVM/TRIGAT missiles, as well as some automatic detection systems
Spoiler
Too lazy to rewrite my words, so I’ll just copy paste:
The E.N.T compared with the Challenger 1 has massive protection differences, with an estimated 46% higher increase with kinetic projectiles and a 75% higher increase with shaped charged projectiles. This was achieved thanks to the turret having Chobham and ERA in its turret, giving the turret 700mm of armour from the front against kinetic projectiles in a 60 degree area of attack, meanwhile for HEAT projectiles it gives 1100mm at an 80 degree frontal arc. The turret sides also had Chobham and could also mount ERA, giving it 460mm of protection at 90 degrees.
The hull armour has 700mm protection against kinetic projectiles and 1300mm against HEAT projectiles if shot on the upper glacis. However like the Challenger 1, it still has the lower plate weakspot, as it wasn’t armoured like the other parts of the tank. The roof was armoured at some areas too, where it has up to 225mm of armour, high enough to survive small projectiles like bomblets and artillery, the bustle part wasn’t armoured.
Spoiler
1 Like
8 Likes
Hello!
First time I read about this E.N.T tank.
Seeing as this one had 700mm KE on the hull, is it reasonable to think Challenger 2’s 550mm KE ingame is on the low end? Or is it fine according to any source we may have available? Do we have any sources in regards to its armor anyway?
Asking you since you seem to be well informed about this, hahah.
I dunno man, as the E.N.T was a good amount paper, as only cannon, autoloader and engine was made. I’m not sure if the armour is planned or if they did use something to test it, as information is incredibly scarce
It wasn’t as stock with no mobility and L26. Still don’t like it to be honest the BK is just better
Ive always heard the 2E has less armour
Its just a CR2 basic with a bigger engine 50 cal and no TOGS
It isnt mate its pretty brutal to use, id rather the BN over the 2E in all honesty.
it does also get CITV which is nice i guess
1 Like
Personally I’d like to see the “Greek Trials” Challenger 2E as an event/premium tank. It would basically just be a normal Challenger 2 with the 1500hp engine, at least then Britain would have two fast Challengers after the Chally 3TD got massacred
5 Likes
So is the BN but instead of the 1500hp engine it gets an APS. Which, absolutely is nice. But it’s not super meta against tanks. At least with the engine you get Abrams/T-80BVM level mobility. The only thing that stops it from being one of the better top tiers is the vertical targeting. But it’s also slow for all Chally 2/3s
Also, I don’t care if everyone disagree the Challenger 2 looks way better without TOGS.
What?
The last image of the autoloader, the vic in the background looks like the G6 HVM that you had made a suggestion on a while back…
That’ll be it, mb for the mistake
Maybe as another premium cause we still have a bit of a premium gap and I want a fast CR2 with a .50 soon. I would 100% buy it
1 Like
I would rather they made the CR2 E a premium and added this one to the tree
CR2 needs TOGS